Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (821956)	12/11/2014 8:55:20 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583501

>> The only question that should be up in the air at this point is whether or not waterboarding as used by the CIA rises to the level that can be defined as torture. It was argued during the Bush admin and the conclusion drawn was that it does not. So the label "enhanced interrogation" was concluded to be a step below interrogation The attorney who did this legal research, now a professor at Berkeley, appeared on the O'Reilly program last night. It was a really good interview, imo. He pointed out that of the techniques, waterboarding was the closest call. It was really pushing the limits of what was/was not called "torture". But at the end of the day, there was no lasting physical harm involved, and strict limits were imposed to prevent it from crossing the line. He pointed out that at the time, the CIA was scrambling to find out anything it could -- there were credible threats against the United States, everyone in the intelligence community -- including the congressional committees, knew what was going on and believed it was necessary to protect Americans. It is so easy to second-guess people's actions and motivations 10 or 15 years down the road when the urgency of the threats is evaporated.